There are really a lot of people at all levels who would like to know which of those statements is accurate, so some more phone polling and some analysis of why the differences are so large would be of general interest.

These really are not good numbers for Remain, given that Leave will have more enthused voters.

This is regularly asserted by Leavers. Is there any polling evidence for it?

In any case, I'm sceptical whether enthusiasm either way will matter that much on this occasion. Whether to stay in or leave the EU is seen as a big decision even among those who don't wear Knock-off Nigel t-shirts or twelve-starred underpants. I expect turnout to be high for that reason - unless it looks like being a landslide either way.

Looks at watch...thinks...hold on have Labour managed to get through the day with a monumental f##k up?

I mean we know they are split over Syria, that McMao green room story was contradicted, but no hug a Jahadi, no tickle a suicide bomber with a feather duster, no quoting from the words of wisdom of a mass murder? Must go down a successful day, no?

These really are not good numbers for Remain, given that Leave will have more enthused voters.

This is regularly asserted by Leavers. Is there any polling evidence for it?

In any case, I'm sceptical whether enthusiasm either way will matter that much on this occasion. Whether to stay in or leave the EU is seen as a big decision even among those who don't wear Knock-off Nigel t-shirts or twelve-starred underpants. I expect turnout to be high for that reason - unless it looks like being a landslide either way.

Well, I'm not leaver, more a pessimistic remainer.

No. I'm not aware of any polling evidence for it. I just think that this is Leave's referendum, something the Leave side have campaigned for for years. EU (non)-membership matters to Leave in a way that staying in doesn't to Remainers.

I think you are right that turn out will be reasonably high - at something like GE level - but I think Leave will have a significant edge.

Looks at watch...thinks...hold on have Labour managed to get through the day with a monumental f##k up?

I mean we know they are split over Syria, that McMao green room story was contradicted, but no hug a Jahadi, no tickle a suicide bomber with a feather duster, no quoting from the words of wisdom of a mass murder? Must go down a successful day, no?

Looks at watch...thinks...hold on have Labour managed to get through the day with a monumental f##k up?

I mean we know they are split over Syria, that McMao green room story was contradicted, but no hug a Jahadi, no tickle a suicide bomber with a feather duster, no quoting from the words of wisdom of a mass murder? Must go down a successful day, no?

Mrs Free, one has to start off with an objective - the thing that has to be obtained. It doesn't matter if one uses traditional words or more modern management speak such as SMART or Well-Formed Outcomes or any other jargon-du-jour. The key point is that there is a goal which everyone can understand and to which everyone knows is the common objective. Without that no organisation, be it military or civilian, public sector or private sector, large or small, can do anything other than flail around.

Cameron's 36 page paper to my mind falls at the first fence because it does not set down in clear and unambiguous terms (or indeed any terms at all) what he UK wants to achieve. We have been given seven platitudes masquerading as tasks but no succes criteria for any of them.

Indeed the document is almost an analogue for Cameron's premiership - well meaning in a sort of wishy-washy kind of way (providing it doesn't actually offend too many people) but with no actual purpose. In this particular case Cameron wants to lead us deeper into a war but on the basis of seven unmeasurable platitudes.

Parliament should, in my view, tell him to go away and come back when he has actually thought about it. His essay as submitted is not even worth an E minus.

Looks at watch...thinks...hold on have Labour managed to get through the day with a monumental f##k up?

I mean we know they are split over Syria, that McMao green room story was contradicted, but no hug a Jahadi, no tickle a suicide bomber with a feather duster, no quoting from the words of wisdom of a mass murder? Must go down a successful day, no?

Mrs Free, one has to start off with an objective - the thing that has to be obtained. It doesn't matter if one uses traditional words or more modern management speak such as SMART or Well-Formed Outcomes or any other jargon-du-jour. The key point is that there is a goal which everyone can understand and to which everyone knows is the common objective. Without that no organisation, be it military or civilian, public sector or private sector, large or small, can do anything other than flail around.

Cameron's 36 page paper to my mind falls at the first fence because it does not set down in clear and unambiguous terms (or indeed any terms at all) what he UK wants to achieve. We have been given seven platitudes masquerading as tasks but no succes criteria for any of them.

Indeed the document is almost an analogue for Cameron's premiership - well meaning in a sort of wishy-washy kind of way (providing it doesn't actually offend too many people) but with no actual purpose. In this particular case Cameron wants to lead us deeper into a war but on the basis of seven unmeasurable platitudes.

Parliament should, in my view, tell him to go away and come back when he has actually thought about it. His essay as submitted is not even worth an E minus.

An important point to note: Jeremy Corbyn has already put in writing that he cannot support the Prime Minister on air strikes in Syria. So he will vote against, regardless of what the shadow cabinet eventually agrees.

So he has pre-empted any idea of collective decision-making. A Rubicon has been crossed tonight.

'There is no future for Jews in Europe', says Brussels' chief rabbi, who says many do not risk visiting Synagogues because there is a 'sense of fear on the streets'

Rabbi Avraham Gigi warned that Jewish people in Brussels are scared He told Israeli radio that increasing numbers of them want to leave Europe He said synagogues in Brussels are closed for the first time since 1945 Belgian authorities have warned groups of people against meeting up

Mrs Free, one has to start off with an objective - the thing that has to be obtained. It doesn't matter if one uses traditional words or more modern management speak such as SMART or Well-Formed Outcomes or any other jargon-du-jour. The key point is that there is a goal which everyone can understand and to which everyone knows is the common objective. Without that no organisation, be it military or civilian, public sector or private sector, large or small, can do anything other than flail around.

Cameron's 36 page paper to my mind falls at the first fence because it does not set down in clear and unambiguous terms (or indeed any terms at all) what he UK wants to achieve. We have been given seven platitudes masquerading as tasks but no succes criteria for any of them.

Indeed the document is almost an analogue for Cameron's premiership - well meaning in a sort of wishy-washy kind of way (providing it doesn't actually offend too many people) but with no actual purpose. In this particular case Cameron wants to lead us deeper into a war but on the basis of seven unmeasurable platitudes.

Parliament should, in my view, tell him to go away and come back when he has actually thought about it. His essay as submitted is not even worth an E minus.

I hope Cameron loses this vote.

So do I, Mr. 30. Not because I object on principle to going to war, but because I am most certainly set against casting away blood and treasure when the PM cannot even be bothered to sit down and think about why other people should make the sacrifice.

An important point to note: Jeremy Corbyn has already put in writing that he cannot support the Prime Minister on air strikes in Syria. So he will vote against, regardless of what the shadow cabinet eventually agrees.

So he has pre-empted any idea of collective decision-making. A Rubicon has been crossed tonight.

Corbyn's functioning as he has done for the last 30 years, and opposing everything.

'For nearly two years, SOHR has reported only acts of violence by the regime against the rebels. Mainstream international media like the BBC, al-Jazeera and al-Arabya, have relied on it as their sole source of news.

'The organization claims to have a wide network of contacts in the region who feed their information to the head office, where it is processed and then posted on the SOHR website, Facebook and Twitter accounts.

RT asked Abdulrahman whether he personally knows "hundreds of people," as he himself puts it, working in Syria for SOHR, and whether he can really trust all of them.

"I know all of the activists working for the SOHR," he replied.

When RT wondered when the last time Abdulrahman actually went to Syria was, he said it was 15 years ago.

Mrs Free, one has to start off with an objective - the thing that has to be obtained. It doesn't matter if one uses traditional words or more modern management speak such as SMART or Well-Formed Outcomes or any other jargon-du-jour. The key point is that there is a goal which everyone can understand and to which everyone knows is the common objective. Without that no organisation, be it military or civilian, public sector or private sector, large or small, can do anything other than flail around.

Cameron's 36 page paper to my mind falls at the first fence because it does not set down in clear and unambiguous terms (or indeed any terms at all) what he UK wants to achieve. We have been given seven platitudes masquerading as tasks but no succes criteria for any of them.

Indeed the document is almost an analogue for Cameron's premiership - well meaning in a sort of wishy-washy kind of way (providing it doesn't actually offend too many people) but with no actual purpose. In this particular case Cameron wants to lead us deeper into a war but on the basis of seven unmeasurable platitudes.

Parliament should, in my view, tell him to go away and come back when he has actually thought about it. His essay as submitted is not even worth an E minus.

I hope Cameron loses this vote.

So do I, Mr. 30. Not because I object on principle to going to war, but because I am most certainly set against casting away blood and treasure when the PM cannot even be bothered to sit down and think about why other people should make the sacrifice.

I listened to Cameron's speech in the office, and there was collective laughter when we heard the lines about nation building in a post conflict Syria. Whatever plan there is, has disaster written all over it. Has no one learnt from the blood spattered folly of Iraq?

No, Mr. Nabavi it doesn't. "We will use the full weight of our diplomatic engagement in the Vienna process to bring about the proposed ceasefire between the regime and theopposition ..." is a platitude not an objective.

Mrs Free, one has to start off with an objective - the thing that has to be obtained. It doesn't matter if one uses traditional words or more modern management speak such as SMART or Well-Formed Outcomes or any other jargon-du-jour. The key point is that there is a goal which everyone can understand and to which everyone knows is the common objective. Without that no organisation, be it military or civilian, public sector or private sector, large or small, can do anything other than flail around.

Cameron's 36 page paper to my mind falls at the first fence because it does not set down in clear and unambiguous terms (or indeed any terms at all) what he UK wants to achieve. We have been given seven platitudes masquerading as tasks but no succes criteria for any of them.

Indeed the document is almost an analogue for Cameron's premiership - well meaning in a sort of wishy-washy kind of way (providing it doesn't actually offend too many people) but with no actual purpose. In this particular case Cameron wants to lead us deeper into a war but on the basis of seven unmeasurable platitudes.

Parliament should, in my view, tell him to go away and come back when he has actually thought about it. His essay as submitted is not even worth an E minus.

Thank you for this. I agree on the objectives point. And "Seven unmeasurable platitudes" is a phrase I shall treasure.

So I'm assuming we think there's a decent chance Corbyn may resign next week?

What odds those who think not?

No chance. Even if he loses Oldham by 5,000 votes he still won't go. I think he's determined to stay until next May's elections come what may.

I expect Corbyn to stay until 2020 (health OK).His task is not achieved until Labour deselect all non Corbyn supporters and turn it in to a proper socialist party..

(And I am completely serious - you all think Corbyn should care if he loses any by-election etc or even the GE. Those are transient compared to the goal of a "proper" socialist " party.. )

I expect Jeremy Corbyn to seek to stay until the internal party revolution is complete.

He will leave only if the membership desert him. To date, that has not looked likely. Anecdotally, however, John McDonnell's stunt with the Little Red Book has disheartened even quite a few diehard Corbynistas. They cannot take membership support for granted indefinitely.

So I'm assuming we think there's a decent chance Corbyn may resign next week?

What odds those who think not?

No chance. Even if he loses Oldham by 5,000 votes he still won't go. I think he's determined to stay until next May's elections come what may.

A resignation would destroy any chance of StopTheWar taking over Labour. He needs to stay and from his perspective he does not need or care for the support of the PLP.A mass resignation of the Shadow Cabinet might work. But the whole labour party have descended into pantomime already so he might even survive that

So I'm assuming we think there's a decent chance Corbyn may resign next week?

What odds those who think not?

No chance. Even if he loses Oldham by 5,000 votes he still won't go. I think he's determined to stay until next May's elections come what may.

I expect Corbyn to stay until 2020 (health OK).His task is not achieved until Labour deselect all non Corbyn supporters and turn it in to a proper socialist party..

(And I am completely serious - you all think Corbyn should care if he loses any by-election etc or even the GE. Those are transient compared to the goal of a "proper" socialist " party.. )

I expect Jeremy Corbyn to seek to stay until the internal party revolution is complete.

He will leave only if the membership desert him. To date, that has not looked likely. Anecdotally, however, John McDonnell's stunt with the Little Red Book has disheartened even quite a few diehard Corbynistas. They cannot take membership support for granted indefinitely.

I don't hold out huge hopes for the ability of air-strikes to materially degrade ISIS. But I can see a scenario where there is good intelligence that their senior commanders are meeting to plan a campaign of violence. In those circumstances, I would want our planes available to take them out. We shouldn't just rely on others to take on that role.

Subjects covered included what we should do in Syria, how I was planning to vote in the EU referendum, what I considered the most important things that influence my vote in the referendum, and I was also asked about Ronseal and Black Friday

No, Mr. Nabavi it doesn't. "We will use the full weight of our diplomatic engagement in the Vienna process to bring about the proposed ceasefire between the regime and theopposition ..." is a platitude not an objective.

Indeed, but read on to the end of the paragraph, which you seem to be wilfully ignoring.

Disappointed to see that the Monster Raving Loony Party, Bus Pass Elvis Party or any other joke party will not be taking part in the Oldham by-election. Always entertaining to see if the Lib Dems manage to get more votes than them.

Seeing as ISIS is an ideology ( I think I heard that on the news!) rather than a country, and hundreds of people who don't live in Syria or Iraq, but Europe inc Britain, are "ISIS soldiers", I cant see that bombing Syria and Iraq is going to stop terrorism here, which is pretty much all I care about.

Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

Subjects covered included what we should do in Syria, how I was planning to vote in the EU referendum, what I considered the most important things that influence my vote in the referendum, and I was also asked about Ronseal and Black Friday

"But the truth is, there is no fixed plan for a political assassination, just mounting discontent and anger that has, for now, focused round the issues thrown up after the Paris shootings.

There is no agreed candidate of the Centre/Right, no agreed mission, no agreed strategy."

This bit

Diane Abbott was one of the small number of Shadow ministers who spoke in agreement with Jeremy Corbyn (the others were Jon Trickett and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party John Cryer). John McDonnell didn’t speak.

Diane Abbott’s phone went off during her address, and she told MPs that she hadn’t listened to David Cameron’s statement to the Commons. When she suggested some points she was told (by Hilary Benn at one point) that those had been addressed in the House.

Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.

Seeing as ISIS is an ideology ( I think I heard that on the news!) rather than a country, and hundreds of people who don't live in Syria or Iraq, but Europe inc Britain, are "ISIS soldiers", I cant see that bombing Syria and Iraq is going to stop terrorism here, which is pretty much all I care about.

Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

'Data from the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that the tax take from the North Sea would collapse from £2.2bn last year to just £130m in 2015/16, highlighting the intense pressure the sector is under from the oil price crash. Four years earlier the sector’s tax contribution was almost £11bn.'

(a) number of professionals and businessmen in London and the South-East aged 35-55 in Class AB, employed graduates living in Bristol, Manchester, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Nottingham plus C1/C2 workers depending on car manufacturing, EU trade and services. Also NI nationalist community and Scots Nats. These will be motivated to vote Remain(b) British men and women (but particularly men) in England and Wales aged over 55, in all social classes but excluding AB in London and the South East, NI unionists, Scottish fishermen, and most adults aged over 45 in areas affected by high EU immigration. They will be motivated to vote Leave.

They will form the basis of the vote. The rest will be down to turnout: e.g. getting lazy students to vote Remain and C2/D/E voters in areas like the North-East and the Welsh Valleys to vote Leave.

Swing constituencies will be Home Counties Tories and the (employed) WWC Labour vote virtually anywhere in E&W. Women will also (in general) be a key swing constituency.

Seeing as ISIS is an ideology ( I think I heard that on the news!) rather than a country, and hundreds of people who don't live in Syria or Iraq, but Europe inc Britain, are "ISIS soldiers", I cant see that bombing Syria and Iraq is going to stop terrorism here, which is pretty much all I care about.

Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

Welcome back!

Thanks

In my absence it seems home grown/2nd generation immigrants that lived in segregated parts of cities and failed to assimilate have murdered hundreds of their countrymen after travelling to and from Syria using the migrant crisis as a cover by pretending to be refugees...

"I told you so" would have been in poor taste anyway, so prob a good thing

But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

On the trajectory they are on, how can Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell regain equilbrium even in the PLP? I know I is extremely hard constitutionally to get rid of a Labour leader, but when there's a wish, there's a way.. It really is terrible for Parliamentary politics to have such a fractured opposition!

Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.

Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?

Mrs Free, one has to start off with an objective - the thing that has to be obtained. It doesn't matter if one uses traditional words or more modern management speak such as SMART or Well-Formed Outcomes or any other jargon-du-jour. The key point is that there is a goal which everyone can understand and to which everyone knows is the common objective. Without that no organisation, be it military or civilian, public sector or private sector, large or small, can do anything other than flail around.

Cameron's 36 page paper to my mind falls at the first fence because it does not set down in clear and unambiguous terms (or indeed any terms at all) what he UK wants to achieve. We have been given seven platitudes masquerading as tasks but no succes criteria for any of them.

Indeed the document is almost an analogue for Cameron's premiership - well meaning in a sort of wishy-washy kind of way (providing it doesn't actually offend too many people) but with no actual purpose. In this particular case Cameron wants to lead us deeper into a war but on the basis of seven unmeasurable platitudes.

Parliament should, in my view, tell him to go away and come back when he has actually thought about it. His essay as submitted is not even worth an E minus.

I hope Cameron loses this vote.

So do I, Mr. 30. Not because I object on principle to going to war, but because I am most certainly set against casting away blood and treasure when the PM cannot even be bothered to sit down and think about why other people should make the sacrifice.

I listened to Cameron's speech in the office, and there was collective laughter when we heard the lines about nation building in a post conflict Syria. Whatever plan there is, has disaster written all over it. Has no one learnt from the blood spattered folly of Iraq?